Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Evan Bayh, Barbara A. Milkulski, and Jon S. Corzine all sat on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and John D. Rockefeller IV, was the Committee Vice Chair that reviewed the exact same information, prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, as did the Bush Administration. Is it the position of pre-war critics that they were (are) smarter and able to better read intel reports than these leading Democrats? If their rational, for not honoring President Bush leading the overthrow of Israel’s arch-enemy, is that he wasn’t as smart as his critics, then I am only left to conclude that, had it been up to those critics, Saddam would today, still be threatening Israel’s very existence.
I believe that a disproportionate amount of Media attention has been placed on the number of casualties and too little reporting on the number of enemy terrorists killed, the heroic actions of our troops and the overwhelming numbers of Iraqis who appreciate our steadfast commitment to seeing the job through. I remain concerned about the future and how long it will take to see a truly free Iraq. I look forward to our soldiers returning home, but suspect that somewhere on the Iraq/Syria border a new “area 51” has been constructed, which will ensure our ability to rapidly address future security threats. And that’s just fine with me! Surely, all people of good will pray for our success in Iraq. No one can, and most would not, turn back the hands of time, so protests and negativity only serve to embolden our enemies. Therefore, if I could actually “put words in the mouths” of those huddled together in Camp Casey, they’d be; words of thanks that (since 9/11) terrorists have been confounded where they live and have been prevented from attacking us where we live, words of understanding and patience, recognizing that the tasks we’ve undertaken are difficult but critical and words of pride, knowing that the only country capable of spreading Freedom and supporting Democracy has not shirked its responsibilities, in our time.
I’m not sure if what I've blogged might be considered “harsh”, but I do know that, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, who is now purportedly "channeling" her slain son, Casey, from heaven, suggesting she can hear him saying, 'George Bush, you are really an idiot’, would meet the “harsh” test. What about the Tel Aviv couple arrested last Friday, who admitted to placing a pig’s head covered in a black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh with the words "The Prophet Muhammad” written on it, in the Hassen Bek Mosque of Jaffa, in hopes, they said, of instigating area Muslims to riot in order to derail the Gaza evacuation plan, which was at its height during the incident. Police found a second pig's head in the suspects' home refrigerator with which the couple said they were planning to repeat the attack. Definitely candidates for designation as “harsh”. While we’re at it, let’s not forget Harry Belafonte who, during Campaign 2004, called Colin Powell and Condi Rice “house slaves” and “tyrants,” and who just recently proclaimed that “Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich,”. That friends, was harsh! Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (d-NV) calling president Bush a 'loser' – Harsh. And one of my all time favorites from the Impeachment groove-bag, fanatical Bill Clinton supporter, Alec Baldwin appearing on the NBC show Late Night With Conan O’Brien and telling the audience: "I’m thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, we would all, right now, all of us together….would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde [one of the Republican congressmen leading the impeachment effort] to death! We would stone him to death! Wait!… Shut up! No, shut up! I’m not finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death, and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children! We would kill their families!" What did liberals think when they first heard such statements? Did they think (they) were harsh? Did they give these leading icons of the Left a pass or G-d forbid, did they cheer them on? My previous blogs may be direct and forceful, but compared to this sampling of democrat hate-speech, mine was anything but harsh.
As to the Main Stream Media’s suggestion that Republicans should be reconsidering their strident, conservative positions, in light of Chuck Hagel’s latest pontifications on TV, let me assure (them) that it’ll take a lot more than Hagel going “wobbly in the knees” to throw us off our game. Did lefties throw-in the towel when Mrs. Clinton voted to invade Iraq, voted twice in favor of Supplemental Budgets for Iraq and most recently, agreed with Bush that “we need to stay the course in Iraq”? And as far as the President’s numbers, the only poll I care about is the one taken when America goes to the ballot box and elects conservative Republicans in ever increasing numbers. The other 729 days, in between, are not much more than noise on the boob tube. So like I’ve been saying for years, turn off CNN and discover how pleasant and optimistic the real world looks.
Lastly, I disagree that liberals have seriously been debating the great issues of our day. I would suggest that when Conservatives attempt to address every point raised with facts and opinion, the Left presents an ever-moving target:
They say that, “We’re embarrassed to live in such a rich country that has so many impoverished people and over 40 million people without health insurance, are areas about which Bush has had little or no policy initiatives”. In response, a dozen or more, specific Health Insurance programs, already implemented by Bush and another half dozen economic accomplishments addressing their concerns were presented. Instead of responding to those points, they just move on to something else. Should we assume that these Lefties are no longer embarrassed to live in America as they now realize that, the facts make more sense than simple liberal platitudes?
I challenge the Left’s preoccupation, with an Iraq body count and Cindy Sheehan, as purely political and they won’t even respond to the charge. Are we to conclude, by their silence, that they acknowledge how morally bankrupt this strategy really is?
I say that recent History has proven that Oslo was bust and that “land for Peace” was a failed strategy. Meanwhile, liberals continue to advocate unconditional peace talks but never address these realities. Do they think that Hammas and Jihad are just going to give it all up and go away quietly? How do they reconcile peace negotiations with an enemy that has forsworn Israel’s right to exist? How come they won’t or can’t give answers? If their liberal philosophy is so rock-solid, what facts, what realities is it founded on? They claim to be committed liberals, but why do they remain so, particularly in light of the stark realities which comprise the real world?
Simply saying that people disagree doesn’t cut it. Intellectual honestly demands that someone have reasons (supported by facts), above and beyond just “feel-good” emotions, for the positions they ascribe to. If liberals have the courage to debate, we should gladly listen to any facts they bring. But, if the best they can muster are time-worn liberal mantras, based solely on feelings, and MoveOn.org daily talking points – they should be prepared to have their old-world, comfort-zone rocked and their self-image challenged. It’s no fair dodging the issues or hiding from the truth, by calling us “mean” people, taking their marbles and going home.
